2010 World Cup Qualifier - Australia vs Uzbekistan

[Parra WILL Win]

I'd like to see how the United States would go travelling 15 hours to the middle east, playing in plus 45 degree temperatures on two days prep.

There's some decent sides - USA, Mexico. Costa Rica have their moments but arent that great (ie one of their players plays for Victory). It's certainly no stronger than the asian confederation.

I disagree i believe its stronger, there is more talent & speed & unbelivable control on the ball. The u.s & mexico usually only draw when playing their central american neighbours & looks loke mexico may very well not qualify this time, & yes carlos hernandez is a good player & there is better ones from the region.

U.S may to struggle with those middle eastern conditions, but australia only has lost twice there since joining asia, i would like to see how australia would handle playing in the packed out, over crowded stadiums in central america with over 50,000 people cheering their country, i went to el salvador vs anguila last year in san salvador & it didnt quite pack out but the atmosphere was intense, especially in the section nick named "vietnam", & when packed out you can hear the noise from the staduim miles away my uncle told me who has been going to the games for 40 years. In the middle eastern stadiums ive seen alot of empty seats & not much atmosphere. For unreal atmoshere you shouldve seen the el salvador vs u.s last sunday, & the roar when el salvador went 2-0 up was massive.

 

[Misanthrope]

Ok, your horrendous use of the english language aside - how can you judge how Australia would perform in CONCACAF based on how they perform in Asia?

In a sport where tactics are so important, it's just stupid to see a team play one way and assume that's how they always play. People gripe endlessly about Pim's style of play, but it's doing the job in Asia. It's a style of play, not our only way to play.

The United States and Mexico are the only two consistently decent sides in CONCACAF. And the US's level of quality is debatable. The Central American ones rise and fall like a woman's mood at that special time of the month. A full strength Australian side would have no trouble in scoring draws away and thumping the likes of Costa Rica, Trinidad & Tobago, and Honduras at home.

 

[Parra WILL Win]

Ok, your horrendous use of the english language aside - how can you judge how Australia would perform in CONCACAF based on how they perform in Asia?

In a sport where tactics are so important, it's just stupid to see a team play one way and assume that's how they always play. People gripe endlessly about Pim's style of play, but it's doing the job in Asia. It's a style of play, not our only way to play.

The United States and Mexico are the only two consistently decent sides in CONCACAF. And the US's level of quality is debatable. The Central American ones rise and fall like a woman's mood at that special time of the month. A full strength Australian side would have no trouble in scoring draws away and thumping the likes of Costa Rica, Trinidad & Tobago, and Honduras at home.

Im not saying australia cant play & they can score wins at home against those teams, just that its alot more difficult to win or draw in el salvador, honduras, costa rica, & mexico than it is in uzbekistan, bahrain & qatar. Your basing your knowledge on previous concacaf world cup qualifiers, ive been following these ones closely cos el salvador still just might make it. & a near full strength mexico team just lost in honduras, a full strength american team just escaped with a draw in el salvador. 2 countries who are ranked higher than australia.

Australia has struggled against the likes of indonesia, bahrain, kuwait, these nations are far from el salvador, costa rica & honduras. We beat uzbekistan a country who only has 17 years of history 2-0 at home, central america has alot of history, there is alot of pride & they've always had quality.

But is it a style of play or just the best that can be done with our current players?

 

[fish eel]

The socceroos team that played indonesia and kuwait wouldnt go anywhere near a wcq match.

 

[Misanthrope]

As fish eel has pointed out, the side that faced Indonesia and Kuwait wasn't a WCQ side - it was one for ACL qualifiers designed to get a draw. It would never face up against serious opposition.

Bahrain were one game away from qualifying for the last World Cup and lost narrowly to Trinidad & Tobago after a shocking home leg. The continental play-offs are a coin flip - so to say Bahrain are 'well below' the CONCACAF nations is just blatantly wrong. It could well have been Bahrain in the World Cup and T&T at home. Australia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, and potentially China would not have had the same amount of trouble with Trinidad & Tobago. All Night Dwight be damned

And what does Uzbekistan's amount of time in the game have to do with anything? The nation pours money into developing players, naturalises foreign talents, and will only improve. How long they've played the game is no indication of how good they are. Scotland have been playing forever and haven't achieved jack.

I'm sorry - but to say Australia would struggle to qualify through the pissweak CONCACAF group is laughable. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about football and an abundance of bias towards a confederation that has extra qualifying berths solely to ensure the US qualifies even in grim years and brings its big television dollars with it.

Australia might not win every single game at a canter, but they certainly wouldn't struggle to qualify. If anything, I think it'd be easier. They'd be able to avoid groups of death like the one containing Iran, Saudi Arabia, and both Koreas.

A full strength Australian side over a full strength US side anyday. Anyplace on earth.

The sole real 'threat' to Australia in CONCACAF is Mexico, and they're playing ratsh*t football at the moment - not being crushed by sleeping giants and emerging powerhouses. The money isn't there for El Salvador or Honduras to ever win a World Cup. Asia has money in spades.

Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, and Australia would walk all over the majority of CONCACAF nations nine games out of ten. There'd be occasional upsets, probably in Central America, but money talks and the gap is only going to widen unless they find oil in such future powerhouses as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.

World Cup Record in the last 20 Years - Concacaf
USA - Round of 16 once. Quarter finals once.
Mexico - Round of 16 four times.
Costa Rica - Round of 16 once.

That's it. Excluding group appearances. Only one by a team that isn't Mexico or USA.

And don't quote World Rankings at me. The FIFA system is a farce, and the fact that the USA is consistently near the top is entirely because it's able to wallop giants of football like Guatemala and Cuba regularly.

 

[Bumble]

Quality rant Mis...you're 100% right fwiw

 

[Azkatro]

Bahrain were one game away from qualifying for the last World Cup and lost narrowly to Trinidad & Tobago after a shocking home leg.

Bias much?

The continental play-offs are a coin flip - so to say Bahrain are 'well below' the CONCACAF nations is just blatantly wrong.

But it's fine to say the continental play-offs are a coin flip...

It could well have been Bahrain in the World Cup and T&T at home.

But it wasn't.

Australia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, and potentially China would not have had the same amount of trouble with Trinidad & Tobago. All Night Dwight be damned

Assume much? I can't recall any of those teams exactly going to town on Bahrain at any stage, so to suggest they would so effortlessly dispose of T&T is a leap of faith in logic.

I'm sorry - but to say Australia would struggle to qualify through the pissweak CONCACAF group is laughable. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about football and an abundance of bias towards a confederation that has extra qualifying berths solely to ensure the US qualifies even in grim years and brings its big television dollars with it.

You are showing plenty of bias yourself, jumping to conclusions based on opinion and whipping yourself up into a frenzy. I would have thought anybody worth their salt with regards to knowledge of world football should know that you can take nothing for granted. When the current world cup champions can go into a tournament and fail to score a goal in the group stages, anything is possible.

Australia might not win every single game at a canter, but they certainly wouldn't struggle to qualify. If anything, I think it'd be easier. They'd be able to avoid groups of death like the one containing Iran, Saudi Arabia, and both Koreas.

The style of football that is played in the Americas would trouble Australia enormously. This is my opinion, but I would rate our defense as satisfactory at best, yet we have not conceded a single goal in the current stage of qualifying. I am fairly certain that if we took our defense to the Americas we would be letting a few in by comparison, and then do we have the attack to return fire? Big question, no way any of us could really know for sure. In any case, to say we'd qualify almost effortlessly is a very big call, and something I'd have to see to believe.

A full strength Australian side over a full strength US side anyday. Anyplace on earth.

Bias much!

The sole real 'threat' to Australia in CONCACAF is Mexico, and they're playing ratsh*t football at the moment - not being crushed by sleeping giants and emerging powerhouses. The money isn't there for El Salvador or Honduras to ever win a World Cup. Asia has money in spades.

Nobody's suggesting that these smaller nations are sleeping giants or emerging powerhouses.

Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran, Japan, and Australia would walk all over the majority of CONCACAF nations nine games out of ten. There'd be occasional upsets, probably in Central America, but money talks and the gap is only going to widen unless they find oil in such future powerhouses as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.

"Walk all over" is overstating it far too much. Yes, the "majority" wouldn't trouble the cream of the crop in Asia, just like the majority in Asia wouldn't trouble the cream of the crop in CONCACAF. And I'm not sure it's entirely correct to suggest that money is the be-all and end-all of World Cup success - if it was, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or England would win every time.

World Cup Record in the last 20 Years - Concacaf
USA - Round of 16 once. Quarter finals once.
Mexico - Round of 16 four times.
Costa Rica - Round of 16 once.

Where's the Asian record over the last 20 years for comparison?

Saudi Arabia - Round of 16 once.
Korea Republic - Semi final once.
Japan - Round of 16 once.

So that's it, excluding group appearances. If it wasn't for Korea's inspried run under Guus Hiddink in 2002, that is looking extremely thin by comparison!

And don't quote World Rankings at me. The FIFA system is a farce, and the fact that the USA is consistently near the top is entirely because it's able to wallop giants of football like Guatemala and Cuba regularly.

Don't quote World Rankings? So you don't accept facts as counter argument? As flawed as it might be, the rankings system stopped Australia from surging to the top of the rankings when we were flogging teams in the Pacific. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate your passion for the Asian region, but you're arguing with one eye open. It was a nice rant, but biased as all hell.

 

[Misanthrope]

But it's fine to say the continental play-offs are a coin flip...

They're hardly a reflection of team quality. I don't think it's wrong to say that Uruguay 2005 were, pound for pound, a superior side to Australia. Yet we qualified and they didn't.

I can't recall any of those teams exactly going to town on Bahrain at any stage, so to suggest they would so effortlessly dispose of T&T is a leap of faith in logic.

I don't see the phrase 'effortlessly dispose' used by me. I said they wouldn't have a great deal of trouble. A chasm of difference between those two assertions.

You are showing plenty of bias yourself, jumping to conclusions based on opinion and whipping yourself up into a frenzy. I would have thought anybody worth their salt with regards to knowledge of world football should know that you can take nothing for granted. When the current world cup champions can go into a tournament and fail to score a goal in the group stages, anything is possible.

Now you're reading too much into what I say. I didn't say Australia would effortlessly qualify through CONCACAF each and every time. I don't make that assumption. I simply say that to say Australia would 'struggle' in CONCACAF is incorrect. Yes, football is a game in which the World Champions can falter and have a terrible World Cup - and it's possible that, regardless of the Confederation we're in and the quality of our side - we might not qualify. God knows, we did that in OFC enough. But we would not consistently struggle like new poster I don't remember the name of suggests. We would not languish behind the El Salvadors and Costa Ricas of the world. Occasionally lose - yes. Occasionally fail to qualify - yes. But 'struggle'? No.

Yes, the "majority" wouldn't trouble the cream of the crop in Asia, just like the majority in Asia wouldn't trouble the cream of the crop in CONCACAF. And I'm not sure it's entirely correct to suggest that money is the be-all and end-all of World Cup success - if it was, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or England would win every time.

What I am arguing is that the number of 'cream of the crop' sides in Asia is greater than that in CONCACAF. Being honest - outside of Mexico and USA - there aren't any other powerful sides in CONCACAF. In Asia you could argue that Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea are all on the same level as Mexico and the USA - although I am inclined to say that a well coached and full strength Mexico side is slightly above all of those.

So that's it, excluding group appearances. If it wasn't for Korea's inspried run under Guus Hiddink in 2002, that is looking extremely thin by comparison!

I wasn't trying to make the point that AFC was a far more competitive region. The poster I can't recall the name of has an inflated opinion of the Central American nations that aren't Mexico - yet only Costa Rica has achieved anything beyond a group appearance, and even that was close to twenty years ago.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason you excluded Australia's round of sixteen appearance?

Don't quote World Rankings? So you don't accept facts as counter argument? As flawed as it might be, the rankings system stopped Australia from surging to the top of the rankings when we were flogging teams in the Pacific. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate your passion for the Asian region, but you're arguing with one eye open. It was a nice rant, but biased as all hell.

FIFA World Rankings are not 'fact'. They're rankings based on a formula made by FIFA which is notoriously ineffecient. I'm personally partial to the ELO ratings system, which better reflects the quality of opposition and stops nations from soaring up the ranks by hammering lesser lights.

 

[Azkatro]

They're fact in the sense that they're the official FIFA rankings. By the way I excluded Australia because they didn't qualify through Asia in 2006 ... in any case I'm glad we're pulling back the reins a bit. We will have to agree to disagree with regards to your opinion that Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea are on the same level as at least the USA. While I think the Yanks' ranking is a little inflated, I would put them maybe on par with Australia and a notch ahead of the other teams you mentioned. With Mexico a notch ahead of that. If we played the Yanks right now they could trouble us greatly with their pace. Further to that, I really don't see how Iran, Saudi Arabia or countries on that level can be considered markedly better than the likes of Costa Rica, Honduras or El Salvador. They would be on par at best.

 

[fish eel]

They're fact in the sense that they're the official FIFA rankings. By the way I excluded Australia because they didn't qualify through Asia in 2006 ... in any case I'm glad we're pulling back the reins a bit. We will have to agree to disagree with regards to your opinion that Australia, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea are on the same level as at least the USA. While I think the Yanks' ranking is a little inflated, I would put them maybe on par with Australia and a notch ahead of the other teams you mentioned. With Mexico a notch ahead of that. If we played the Yanks right now they could trouble us greatly with their pace. Further to that, I really don't see how Iran, Saudi Arabia or countries on that level can be considered markedly better than the likes of Costa Rica, Honduras or El Salvador. They would be on par at best.

Japan and Australia are better than the UNited States.